29 December 2009

Reduce, reuse, recycle

How's that workin' out for ya?

"Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007."
**********

RELATED: It don't take a Weatherman


22 comments:

Anon1152 said...

Released in 2007.

Does that mean that the Bush admin. was "soft on terrorism"?

The_Iceman said...

Far be it from me to plug one of my own posts, but isn't rate of recidivism one of the problems that JAG Officer Major Kyndra Rotunda was talking about?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 asks... Does that mean that the Bush admin. was 'soft on terrorism'?"

uh, yeah sure... that must be it... in between being a megalomaniacal killer of same.

make up your mind, nonny... but maybe read the iceman's link first.

*

Anonymous said...

First off, any adult who calls himself "The Iceman" must not be taken seriously. Secondly, since your intention with this post was to blame this failed act on Obama, how do you address the excellent point made by Anon1152? These guys were let out under Bush's watch.

But hey,I'm as shocked as you. We round these guys up, throw them in prison without trial where they get to watch American tanks, planes and soldiers destroy vast parts of the Muslim world. It's a total shock they still want to kill us after they get out.

It's a crime how badly the Bush admin fucked it all up.

Anon1152 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neo Conservative said...

*
"another anonymous troll rages... since your intention with this post was to blame this failed act on Obama"

that's funny... i don't see president mcdreamy's name anywhere in my post.

but nonetheless, with your special superpowers... you're perfectly willing to impute motive to both myself & anon1152.

see, i'm not so sure anon1152 is as much of a jihadi cheerleader as yourself... but more to the point... i'm perfectly willing to have him offer up his own opinion.

what i do think, is that you don't round up mad dog terrorists... just to set them free. this "catch & release" thing... under anyone's watch... is just nuts.

and lastly, nonny al-libby... if things here in north america are as terrible as you say... can we presume you will be moving to some egalitarian islamic paradise anytime in the near future?

*

Anon1152 said...

Neo:

I don't quite see how I'm the one who needs to make up his mind. From what you and the Iceman have said, I think the Bush administration had trouble making up its mind.

I was confused by the Iceman's post. He seems angry. But at who exactly? He is mad at (or at least "vehemently disagree[s]" with Rae's "thesis that under the Geneva Conventions, Kahdr should be released into Canadian custody or freed altogether."

I assume he means this op-ed piece.

There, Rae doesn't make reference to the Geneva conventions, but to the Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers.

That document seems to focus more on whether or not a combatant is a child rather than whether or not they are in uniform. And it specifically includes "non-state armed groups".

But I digress.

As I was saying, I'm confused. On the one hand, he does not want Khadr brought to Canada. (All other western countries who had citizens in Gitmo have had their citizens released from Gitmo).

But he also thinks that: "to release them all together when a proportion of them will inevitably return to Afghanistan to resume firing bullets at Canadian soldiers is morally unconscionable. "

OK. I'm with him thus far. But then he notes:
"In the meantime I would remind you that at its peak there were approximately 800 detainees at Gitmo. The day George Bush left office there were 245. Many of the over 550 released were freed after their annual reviews by the so called “unfair tribunals”. Prisoners who had their files reviewed and were deemed free to go, something not required by the Geneva Conventions which states that POWs are to be released at the cessation of hostilities."

I would think, based on what he's said, that the Bush administration's behaviour was the most morally unconscionable. They released 550 of these people. Either they wrongly imprisoned 550 people (over 1/2 of the original 800); or they wrongly released 550 non-innocent horrible people.

-Anon1152.

P.S.
Not that I buy conspiracy theories, but the fact that they were released to Saudi Arabia might be just a bit suspicious.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... the Bush administration's behaviour was the most morally unconscionable."

hmmm... didn't president mcdreamy promise to close down gitmo in his first year in office? curiously... you don't question why "the one" continues to imprison all these alleged "innocents"?

if you simply wanna climb on the "oiljesus bushhitler" bandwagon, there really isn't much point to continuing this particular discussion, is there?

i guess nonny @9:26 actually does speak for you.

that's a little disappointing... i suppose i expected more from you than the usual jihadi apologist/troll.

my mistake.

btw... what was it you were gonna say in the comment you pulled back @9:53 above?

*

storytime grandma said...

wouldn't it be nice if the left would allow the criminals to be punished instead of punishing the ordinary people?

I like the name iceman.

Anonymous said...

Time for them all to be sent to the middle east. I just wish I could push the button when the last one gets there.

FREE

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... Time for them all to be sent to the middle east."

them all? what does that mean? people who have different complexions or religions? immigrants?

my parents were immigrants. i have no problem with law-abiding folk (whatever their background) who choose to integrate into canadian society.

you wanna do some white power shit, nonny... take it down the road... it's not welcome here.

*

Anon1152 said...

Neo:

The comment I pulled back was a half sentence in which I attempted to use an html tag. I just started doing the html thing yesterday. Not experienced at it. In this case I wanted to see if it worked, so I tried to hit "preview" but instead hit "publish".

Love the ability to delete comments though. I suppose I should thank you for forcing me to get a blogger/google account thing. (Thank you).

Nothing I would have said @9:53 was left unsaid in my subsequent comment.

Speaking of that comment...

I didn't question Obama. But based on your original post, I assumed he wasn't an issue.

Also... my comments tend to focus on the blog post and others' comments, rather than trying to bring in other/new/different information. At least that's what I try to do. I assume no one I respond to would believe anything I bring to the table.

*

You write:
"anon1152 says... the Bush administration's behaviour was the most morally unconscionable."

I did say that. But I think that attention should be paid to what I said before and after that in order to understand the point I was making.

If I may quote myself...

"I would think, based on what he's said [the Iceman], that the Bush administration's behaviour was the most morally unconscionable. They released 550 of these people. Either they wrongly imprisoned 550 people (over 1/2 of the original 800); or they wrongly released 550 non-innocent horrible people."

I think, based on what the Iceman has said, that there is a problem with the Bush administration's actions. It may be that they imprisoned innocents. Or it may be that they released the guilty.

This agrees (at least partially) with your point: "this "catch & release" thing... under anyone's watch... is just nuts."

No argument there.

Anon@926 makes has a third option: perhaps they imprisoned the innocent, who upon their release, become the guilty. (That is, if you imprison someone unjustly and accuse them of belonging to enemy group X, they are likely to join enemy group X if and when they escape).

That isn't necessarily "jihadi cheerleading". It could be just the opposite. It reminds me of James Madison's reluctance to abolish slavery in the USA, even though he was in principle against it: having been enslaved, you can expect them to be angry.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... Anon@926 makes has a third option: perhaps they imprisoned the innocent, who upon their release, become the guilty."

well... if your mother had wheels she'd be a truck.

here's a thought... perhaps yourself & nonny can afford the non-jihadi participants in this little brouhaha the same leeway you seem to be willing to automatically confer on these two wannabe mass-murderers?

unfortunately... given my understanding of current affairs, i'm not so likely to afford the folks with a demonstrable proclivity for & history of targeting innocent bystanders... the unvarnished benefit of the doubt.

i'm just funny that way.

*

Anon1152 said...

1. What's the brouhaha? This set of comments? (I thought it was more of a kerfuffle...)

2. What counts as leeway, in your opinion? I don't think I've been unfair... (though I am periodically obnoxious.. e.g., my first comment above).

3. Where do I give "two wannabe mass murderers" the benefit of the doubt? From what I've said thus far, I think my problem with them is that they were let out, not that they were put there in the first place.

I was worried that the Bush administration was being given the benefit of the doubt.

4. And I wanted to point out what I saw as a problem in the Iceman's argument. If the prisoners were as bad as he want us to believe, why were 550 set free? Why were they set free by the administration that was supposed to be more "anti-terror" than the current administration?

There seems to be a big problem in the way Gitmo was handled by the Bush administration) whether or not you believe that the prisoners were guilty or innocent or something in between. Will you concede that at least?

mahmood said...

Anon 1152 smells of eau de toilette Balbulican...Balbull, that you buddy?

Anon1152 said...

Should I know what that means?

mahmood said...

Yup.

Anon1152 said...

Wow. Just came across a post by this Balbulican fellow on Raging Tory's blog. Balbulican apparently has his own url...(http://www.stageleft.info/)... should I be flattered or insulted (or something else)?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... should I be flattered or insulted"

no should about it, i guess... you either are... or you aren't.

*

Anon1152 said...

"you either are or you aren't"

Would be true, if I knew who Balbulican was.

Only just discovered him or her tonight.

And it's past my bedtime.

And was hoping to take a shortcut... and have Mahmood tell me how to feel... or rather, tell me how s/he feels I should feel.

mahmood said...

Heh, well for starters...like an ass.

Anon1152 said...

"Heh, well for starters...like an ass."

Done and Done.

But for different reasons.

I was hoping for more detail.

I realize that I need to take the time to read more of this Balbulican's Blog. I hope to do so... but can't right now, for a number of reasons.

*

I'm surprised at the number of people I'm accused of impersonating. Perhaps I should try making a name for myself... so that others would be accused of impersonating me... though I'm not sure I'd wish that on even my worst enemies...